Talk:Smoothie King

Advertising?
I did not intend to in any way advocate the franchise. This problem can be solved if more contributors are willing to expand the article. -- Gray  Porpoise Your wish is my command! 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
If I have done anything wrong whatever please ameliorate. I reread what I had written and there is a seeming slant, as I used to work there. I would appreciate it if an outsider could winnow the bias out and leave a nice neutral article. I will be paying this article more attention in days to come. Thank you. Heureka! 06:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

advertising
This is a pretty bad article. It sounds like advertising and the main claims--that these smoothies are "health food" and that the chain's founder invented the category--are completely unsourced (and the second is contradicted by the text at smoothie. The first reference is also the companies website, which I understand shouldn't be used as a reputable source. I had never heard of the chain until I saw it made the CPSI's 2013 "Extreme Eating" report (http://cspinet.org/new/201301161.html), so I'm hardly knowledgeable to make edits; but I might try if no one else is going to. squibix  (talk)  16:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What's missing
We still don't know their menu, whether or not they have responded to vegan concerns (for nondairy ingredients, as with plantmilks, range of US locations (I see that they are in Clark, New Jersey) and now headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and how successful their Clean Blends initiative has been to date. Is there no 3rd party media to address any of this?  My quick online search found plenty to make a more robust, interesting article about a seemingly low-cost franchise opportunity in an era when small businesses are responsible for a very large portion of jobs in industrialized nations. The first version of the article mentioned Steve Kuhnau's lactose intolerance and that the franchise company had more than 870 units worldwide (very interesting article, lost in supposed 'wikification').  The expanse seems to be to 32 US states.[ Except for mention of leadership changes, this Wikipedia article covers 2012-2014, but last year it was awarded "#1 Juice Bar Franchise on Entrepreneur Magazine's Annual Franchise 500 list, marking the 27th year the brand has occupied the top spot. "(2019) Is there no way to make articles interesting to read, not merely succinct and encyclopedic? MaynardClark (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've inquired at the reliable-sources noticeboard about the appropriateness of Fast Casual as a reliable source. The second is right out, though, because "Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) is considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources."  As for citing Smoothie King's own website, that's the sort of area that's iffy; the criteria at WP:ABOUTSELF need to be followed fastidiously, and we don't want to overuse self-published sources so as to overwhelm secondary sources.  I'll keep an eye on the noticeboard discussion, and will read that third source for potentiality if you'd like.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating them AS sources but noting that the article we now have is not as interesting (or IMO informative) as the original article and that information we could use (in sources we don't allow) is 'out there' and likely available IN more reputable and highly-regarded online sources. IMO we become lazy when we look ONLY in online sources, but that is how the fast-paced worlds of citation work. MaynardClark (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Sorry, I misunderstood!  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 17:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is unrepresentative?
"Republican state legislators particularly relish passing legislation to exploit child labor. The Louisiana bill, now before the state Senate, is sponsored by Roger Wilder III, a Republican freshman who owns 19 Smoothie King franchises scattered throughout Louisiana and the Deep South."

What from that doesn't translate into what I wrote...? 92.21.86.180 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The prose you added to the article was  This suggests that company franchises are, across the board, supporting these legislative efforts.  According to The New Republic article however, it's merely Roger Wilder III&mdash;owner of fewer than 1.41% of company franchises (not including those still-corporately-owned)&mdash;who is advocating therefor.  According to the source, it's certainly accurate to say Wilder is promoting these things, and they may be salient to include at his article, but claiming that's the position of  writ large is incorrect.  Additionally, discussing the activity of one franchisee here, barring more sources tying the company to his personal efforts, is undue at this time.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Undue? They can remove his licence at any time if they wanted, no? The fact they don't makes them complicit. This is ludicrous, honestly... so, there can be a situation where a franchisee is committing genocide, possibly committing governmental coups in some countries... but just because they cleverly apportion their corporation they can avoid what, in your opinion, legal and all and any other responsibility...? A lot of corporations already criminal charged must have missed a trick, there... and I guess all corporations who currently have 'controversies' and 'legal' sections (which somehow remain) have to do is become a franchise and, like magic, they're absolved of all of that... 92.21.86.180 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole notwithstanding, the matter is that Wilder does not represent Smoothie King as a company, nor does he represent even 1.5 percent of the company's franchisees. It's arguable that he's legislating in his own interests, which could be relevant at his article, but not this one.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 11:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned here not because he's also a legislator... and I'm not sure why you seem to think any percentage might not be worth bothering with. I mean, has a threshold even been established at which point a corporation is responsible for its franchises? Is it hyperbole when they seem legitimate hypotheticals? Because, really, it shouldn't be mentioned, either, if it was, say, 49% of franchises, and only if it's over 50%, or what? Fact of the matter is that I don't suppose this has ever been established here, has it? If not, then why not go with what sources say? Otherwise, aren't editors applying their own judgement as to whether or not something should be included even if sources detail it? That reference is certainly not the only one mentioning it, of course, and regardless of whether or not a theoretically comprehensive encyclopedia has this fact included... it's still available in countless news sites! 92.21.86.180 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONUS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of everything that can be sourced. And even if it were, Fourthords is correct: sources are not about franchises as a group, they're about one person. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so can't we mention the person in relation to the franchise? Ultimately, there is a still a connection, and it's not some indiscriminate, random fact like 'the sky is blue', which has no relation to the franchise... 92.21.86.180 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, 'there is still a connection' is not sufficient here. Also, you should have a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right great wrongs...? Is Criticism of McDonald's righting great wrongs..? It's still a franchise, and there's literally a whole page detailing various incidents... so, I suppose, from your point of view they're all unrelated to the central corporation, and so should be deleted, and any attempt to connect them to it is "righting great wrongs"? (Seriously, what... it's merely adding to history, how in the world is that righting great wrongs... if I wanted to do that I'd use the legal system, or whatever... how is filling in some detail for a supposedly comprehensive encyclopedic article that...) 92.21.86.180 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't see the difference between criticism of a corporation from reliable sources and using a Wikipedia article to launch attacks on a single franchisee, I don't know how to explain it to you. But Wikipedia cannot be used for this. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)